50 books to read before you die

I know it's a strange title. It's based on my bookmark, which lists the 50 books or series waterstones recommend to read in your lifetime. At 25, I have read 11 of those books, I've almost finished the twelfth (three chapters from the end of Wuthering Heights! I'm so proud of this achievement, I may reread something like Twilight in cushy celebration of conquering that mountain. Although, not Twilight, because the parallels between the books are eerily apparent to me. Shopaholic Abroad would do) and I've read about half a chapter of number 13. I'm determined to finish the list before I turn 40, and my son turns 18 (same year. Hello, midlife crisis in 2025!) but I'll keep you updated on here as I achieve it, obviously.

So anyway, I was thinking, as I read Wuthering Heights/read "Twilight without any happily-ever-afters" about why I dislike certain books over others. Aside from exacerbating situations or conversations which should be brief or nonexistent and therefore feel like padding, or the reverse where you have to write between the lines to comprehend what the characters are doing. I think with some books, it's the references. Twilight, Pretty Bad Things, and especially House of Night, have all leaned too reliantly on other works. Now, I know that there's not really such thing as a new idea any more, just a rewrite of old ideas, a restructuring. It's especially evident in sitcoms, where I could rewrite most scenes a dozen different ways and instead sit there saying lines before the characters because it's so predictable, having been in another sitcom (especially evident when you watch as many sitcoms as I do). I'm not saying by any means that authors these days should be inventive, because God knows how pedestrian I would be otherwise. But the parallel between new work and the old work should be subtle. House of Night annoyed me more because I was halfway through Bram Stoker's Dracula (another mountain to climb. I hate the lack of suspense) when I read one of the books. It was already established that Zoey's favourite book was Dracula, but then she has this conversation with one of her many boyfriends and ruined the effing ending! P.C.Cast and Kristen Cast shouldn't have assumed that everyone's read it. But obviously, that's going to play in parallel to Zoey's current dilemma. Mostly, it's the reptition of the phrases, of the titles, of how the characters in the newer books relate to the old characters. If I wanted to read the old books, I would (Wuthering Heights is on the list of 50, hence why I bothered to pick it up. Bram Stoker because I want to find a decent Vampire book. Anne Rice has a lot of burden on her shoulders to bear for that, I still haven't got around to Interview With A Vampire).

Another thing that annoys me, which is similar, is an author getting too into the success of their work. Sue Townsend does it with Adrian Mole in a few books. It was okay when he was on TV with Offally Good! but when his school friend wrote a book called Adain Vole, or the Adrian Mole TV show came out ... uh, it put me right off a series I loved growing up.

I sound so disgruntled right now, don't I? It's not that I am, it's just ... aren't these things you should expect from authors? That they try for their own merit, but don't rub it in that they have something of merit? Repetition and recognition of their other works in newer books I can deal with, I like the way they're trying to create their own intricate world. But that therein is the point. It's their world.